Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1923–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Redding v. Welborngreen2 sentences2019Accordingly, “[w]hen an employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment, the tort can be imputed to the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Estate of Redding v. Welborn, 170 N.C. 2019Aldridge Compl. ¶ 238; Goulet Compl. ¶ 206; Kelly Compl. ¶ 321; Olin Compl. ¶ 247; Peterson Compl. ¶ 206; Williams Compl. ¶ 222.) “When an employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment, the tort can be imputed to the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Estate of Redding v. Welborn, 170 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Lewis v. . Huntergreen2 sentences1945Lewis v. Hunter , 212 N.C. 504 , 507 , 508 , 193 S.E. 814 ; Florio v. Jersey City , 129 A. 470 , 40 A.L.R., 1353 (anno.); Skerry v. Rich , 228 Mass. 462 , 17 N.E. 824 ; Anno. 40 A.L.R., 1358 . *Page 788 The State of North Carolina has adopted this view in Lewis v. Hunter, supra , and any extension of immunity in that respect is a matter of legislative action. 1945Lewis v. Hunter, 212 N. C., 504, 507, 508 , 193 S. E., 814 ; Florio v. Jersey City, 129 Atl., .470, 40 A. L. | 1 | 2 |
Harvey v. Raleigh Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2009A result consistent with “intoxication” or being “under the influence” from a blood or other medical test conducted in a manner generally acceptable to the scientific community and consistent with applicable State and federal law, if any, shall create a rebut-table presumption of impairment from the use of alcohol or a controlled substance. *625 Id. “[B]eing under the influence of a controlled substance [is an] affirmative defense which place [s] the burden of proof on the employer in a claim for Workers’ Compensation. [This defense] will be a proximate cause of the employee’s death or injury 2009App. 540, 545 , 355 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2002In Reinforced Earth Co. v. W.C.A.B., 749 A.2d 1036, 1038 (Pa. Commw. 2000), the court held there is nothing in the IRCA which indicates that an individual, hired by an employer in violation of its provisions, is not an “employee” under federal or state law. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Hefnergreen2 sentences1997Smith v. Hefner, 235 N.C. at 7 , 68 S.E.2d at 787 (citations omitted). 1997Smith v. Hefner, 235 N.C. at 7 , 68 S.E.2d at 787 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Kadis v. . Brittgreen2 sentences1988See, e.g., Kadis v. Britt, 224 N.C. 154 , 29 S.E.2d 543 (1944). 1988See, e.g., Kadis v. Britt, 224 N.C. 154 , 29 S.E.2d 543 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eledge v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. 1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. | 3 | 1952–1953 |
Essick v. City of Lexington
green
2 sentences1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. 1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. | 3 | 1952–1953 |
Brown v. Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. 1952R., 204 N.C. 668 , 169 S.E. 419 ; Eledge v. Light Co., 230 N.C. 584 , 55 S.E. 2d 179 , and Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600 , 65 S.E. 2d 220 , in which, it says, this Court has expressly approved the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the employer as a bar, pro tanto, in an action such as this. | 2 | 1949–1952 |
Collins v. Garber
neutral
1 sentence2017App. at 656 , 325 S.E.2d at 23 , we turn to the Industrial Commission's own standard forms and find they also reflect the necessity for the employee to notify the employer of a claim, but place the burden of identification of the proper insurance carrier on the employer and Industrial Commission. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Miller v. . Jones
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Guest v. Brenner Iron & Metal Company
green
2 sentences1988Plaintiffs' reliance upon Guest v. Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448 , 85 S.E.2d 596 , is misplaced. 1988Plaintiffs' reliance upon Guest v. Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448 , 85 S.E.2d 596 , is misplaced. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Roberts v. Burlington Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988Its conclusion that "the good will of Burlington can only have been benefited by having [decedent] in its employment," id., thus is purely speculative and cannot serve as the basis for a holding that the appreciable benefit to the employer test was met. 1988Its conclusion that “the good will of Burlington can only have been benefited by having [decedent] in its employment,” id., thus is purely speculative and cannot serve as the basis for a holding that the appreciable benefit to the employer test was met. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Taylor v. Dixon
neutral
2 sentences1982The employer stated in the hearing that, "He [the injured employee] was employed to run the chain sawnot to operate the tractor * * * I didn't hire him as a tractor driver." Id. at 305 , 111 S.E.2d at 182 . 1982The employer stated in the hearing that, "He [the injured employee] was employed to run the chain sawnot to operate the tractor * * * I didn't hire him as a tractor driver." Id. at 305 , 111 S.E.2d at 182 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co.
neutral
1 sentence1971Graham v. Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680 , 58 S.E. 2d 757 , 17 A.L.R. 2d 881 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1971Graham v. Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680 , 58 S.E. 2d 757 , 17 A.L.R. 2d 881 . 1971Graham v. Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680 , 58 S.E. 2d 757 , 17 A.L.R. 2d 881 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Skerry v. Rich
green
1 sentence1945Lewis v. Hunter , 212 N.C. 504 , 507 , 508 , 193 S.E. 814 ; Florio v. Jersey City , 129 A. 470 , 40 A.L.R., 1353 (anno.); Skerry v. Rich , 228 Mass. 462 , 17 N.E. 824 ; Anno. 40 A.L.R., 1358 . *Page 788 The State of North Carolina has adopted this view in Lewis v. Hunter, supra , and any extension of immunity in that respect is a matter of legislative action. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Florio v. Mayor of Jersey City
green
2 sentences1945Lewis v. Hunter , 212 N.C. 504 , 507 , 508 , 193 S.E. 814 ; Florio v. Jersey City , 129 A. 470 , 40 A.L.R., 1353 (anno.); Skerry v. Rich , 228 Mass. 462 , 17 N.E. 824 ; Anno. 40 A.L.R., 1358 . *Page 788 The State of North Carolina has adopted this view in Lewis v. Hunter, supra , and any extension of immunity in that respect is a matter of legislative action. 1945Lewis v. Hunter , 212 N.C. 504 , 507 , 508 , 193 S.E. 814 ; Florio v. Jersey City , 129 A. 470 , 40 A.L.R., 1353 (anno.); Skerry v. Rich , 228 Mass. 462 , 17 N.E. 824 ; Anno. 40 A.L.R., 1358 . *Page 788 The State of North Carolina has adopted this view in Lewis v. Hunter, supra , and any extension of immunity in that respect is a matter of legislative action. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Barrett
green
1 sentence1929Railway Co. v. Barrett, 166 U. S., 617 , 41 Law Ed., 1136. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
McKinney v. . Adams
neutral
1 sentence1923In the recent case of McKinney v. Adams, 184 N. C., 562 , it was held: “The principle requiring an employer, in the exercise of reasonable care, to furnish to his employees a safe place to work, and provide them with implements, tools, and appliances suitable to the work in which they are engaged, applies to simple or ordinary tools where the defect is readily observed, and of a kind importing menace of substantial injury, having due regard to the nature of the work and the manner of doing it, and the employer should have known of the defect, or discovered it under the duty of inspection ordin | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.